When you talk Apple's tiniest tablet with the OpenForum, things can get heated.

This week Senior Apple Editor Jacqui Cheng reviewed the iPad mini, and she found many features to love. But some features, like the display, left a bit to be desired. Ars readers also got their hands on Apple’s new small-form tablet, and the following discussions went into interesting new areas. What features can make the iPad mini a device that can be described as brilliant?

SmoledMan kicks off the thread "Why the iPad Mini is brilliant" with a few key points: "#1 - it destroys the 7" consumer tablet market just like that. #2 - it's the perfect device for enterprise where all you need is light content creation, status & command acknowledgement. Imagine an iPad Mini used for inventory control. It's so light and can host LOB applications."

This thread was posted in the Battlefront forum, which is a place where fiery discussions often take place. G3Dresponds to the original post: "Thread over, no contention, just your un-justified opinion, well done."

But OrangeCream steps in and continues to nurture the discussion by posting more reasons why the iPad mini triumphs (based on a comparison to the Google Nexus 7): "1) It's thinner and lighter than the N7, 2) It's got a more powerful GPU than the N7, 3) It's got better cameras than the N7, 4) It's got a visually better display than the N7 (brightness, contrast, gamut), 5) It's got better battery life than the N7, 6) It's got better tablet optimized apps than the N7."

In our review we noted that the step back in the iPad mini's screen technology may make consumers think twice. Arcite also weighs in on the issue: "I'll wait for the iPad mini Retina 2 (circa 6 months from now)."

Puppeteer adds analysis on the lack of a retina screen: "The thing is the non retina mini isn't targeted at iPad retina owners, it's for people who don't have iPads. For those people it's still a higher resolution display (by area) than the original iPad, and more importantly, the non tablet they currently don't own."

Other users in the thread, like the_stig_1, cut through some of the industry buzz surrounding the mini and focused in on specific needs and value for dollar: "I have found the relentless spin from Siegler and Gruber dizzying. They parroted the party line about smaller tablets for years before loudly proclaiming that they're switching to the iPad mini. For my own part I use the iPad as a laptop replacement so I don't have a burning need for a smaller-screened device. I'm also not willing to part with the high-DPI screen of the iPad for the mini. It's also too much money. $299 would have been a much better starting point while preserving a healthy 30% margin (if iSuppli's estimates of the mini's BOM is correct) That extra $30 is a huge psychological barrier, IMHO. At the low price of the Nexus 7, I've been tempted to pick one up purely out of curiosity. I can't say the same for the mini."

Many Ars readers in the Openforum choose other tablets and devices. Hintonsays: "I read the reviews of both the 7" Android tablets and the iPads prior to purchasing the N7 (I also considered the iPad retina, but decided against it because of size. I wanted something that would fit in my pocket. That's because I am not using my tablet as a desktop replacement). Had the iPad mini been out when I purchased the N7, I'm informed enough to make the same correct decision, even if priced equal, of what I admit, is my subjective view of what a tablet should be used for."

dwellsays, "Brought home the mini last night. Wife is getting one now. This device is just as much of a threat to Sony and Nintendo as it is to Amazon and Google. Why get a Vita or Wii U when you can have a killer gaming device plus a fuckton functionality more for just a little bit more? [...] It blows my mind why anyone would want a Sony or Nintendo device."

Hintonthinks the iPad mini may continue to add to Apple’s success in the mobile gaming market: "A company like Nintendo could enter the market with a gaming pack, including their killer game"s" + a holder the tablet could sit in with proper controls, using Bluetooth to communicate with the tablet."

When it comes to the iPad mini, there are many other areas to consider: productivity apps, e-readers, utilities, battery life, wireless, and so on. If you bought an iPad, what are your thoughts on the device? If you’re on the fence or definitely not purchasing one, tell us about the other options you see out there on the marketplace. Share your thoughts with us in the comments or in the OpenForum. Register for an account to participate in the discussion.

Promoted Comments

The case for the Mini didn't really make sense when it was rumored last year, and I think it makes less sense now. It's not that it is a bad 7" tablet; on specs and app selection, it's arguably the best around. The problem is that it is still poised as an iPad. It seems too similar to the 3rd gen iPod Touch where they updated the internals except for the lowly 8GB version. Instead of a level upgrade, a demonstrably inferior product was put on display. Especially with the push for "Retina" displays across the product line, from iPods to Macbooks, and two iPad generations to push app resolutions up, the Mini's display seems like a step backwards. The processor, like resolution, hot off the heels of the A6 and A6X, is also a generation old.

Forget that it's still quite capable. Forget that Apple typically uses high quality displays regardless of resolution. Forget that a Retina Mini is inevitable, likely less than a year after debut of the 1st gen. The iPad Mini is a compromise. While other Apple products reach for the top, the Mini falls short; you don't buy an iPad to settle for less. The Mini might just be the weakest entry in their current line up.

112 posts | registered Feb 27, 2009

Cesar Torres
Cesar is the Social Editor at Ars Technica. His areas of expertise are in online communities, human-computer interaction, usability, and e-reader technology. Cesar lives in New York City. Emailcesar.torres@arstechnica.com//Twitter@Urraca

166 Reader Comments

The Nexus 7 will technically display more content (at the pixel level) since it's 1280x800 screen has more pixels in both directions than the iPad Mini's 1024x768 screen. An alternate way of looking at it would be to say that the iPad Mini is cutting of the bottom of the page by 32 pixels in landscape orientation at equal zoom levels. Or in portrait orientation it is cutting off 256 pixels from the bottom of a page.

One could justify the $129 premium over the Nexus 7 if it improved the user experience.

So the App Store's awesomely huge selection of apps compared to the competition doesn't "improve the user experience"?

You raised the question about the display, and I gave you a reason why it stinks. The App store is a completely different topic. I don't think there's any debate that Apple has more apps.

Actually it doesn't have more apps. At last count Android has caught up to Apple.

And before all the fanboys flare up about how Apple has more good apps, let me stop you. On Android, I only need a few apps to get things done, and the majority of them are free. If you want to spend more on the hardware and spend more on apps, feel free. But don't tell me Android didn't have good apps, because I can do much more with less restrictions on Android than iOS.

First off, there aren't a lot of tablet apps for Android. Blown up phone apps don't count. Also, many apps are iOS only, including most of the best games. The ones that make it to Android are usually on iOS first, then some months later get an Android port. Many of the ones that actually make it to Android require you to be connected, as piracy is a bigger concern in that ecosystem. Android 'free' apps often start processes that Android has a hard time shutting down, to preserve battery life as well.

Some apps that I use include Garage Band and Foreflight. http://www.foreflight.com/ Neither of which has a comparable Android equivalent.

And finally, what in the world does this mean?

Quote:

because I can do much more with less restrictions on Android than iOS.

Seriously. What is there that actually matters can only be done on Android? That whole statement is an empty nerd dream. Bottom line, Android is a clunky and clumsy OS. Having to use a wanna be Java layer to run applications in (Dalvic) means you need to have a lot of horsepower just to have the screen run smooth, let alone anything else.

If I weren't typing on a cell phone, I'd post a line by line rebuttal to prove how wrong you are, but it's really not necessary because all your arguments are classic fanboy propaganda, regurgitated from the mouth of someone who's never used an Android device for longer than thirty seconds (though I'm leaning more towards never).

For me it comes down to this: besides running iOS, is there anything that the iPad Mini does better than the Nexus 7 for $130 less?

The Nexus has it beat in hardware power and screen resolution though the camera may be better in the iPad for anyone who that matters to.

It seems to me that unless you need/want iOS, the Nexus is a superior device.

Isn't this the general value proposition for iOS devices, though? With the occasional rare exception (the iPad Retina, at least for the next couple of days), iOS devices have never been exceptional, hardware-wise. On a regular basis, they've only managed to match up to mid-range devices from their competition. It seems obvious to me that nobody's buying these things for their specs (or lack therein), but rather for the ecosystem, both apps and accessories.

And, even as someone who wants nothing to do with Apple as a company, the POS that is iTunes, or vendor lock-in in general... it's one hell of an ecosystem.

Apple has a first mover advantage. Whether or not that advantage is anything to get exited about anymore is disputable. Clearly Ars is infested with a noisy group of fanboys that can't accept that much of the world makes different choice for their own reasons.

Suitable for the fanboy in question? Sure. Undoubtedly superior to anything and everything else? Not at all.

These people need to get a grip and stop trying to force this propaganda down everyone's throats.

It's both. If it was just Aspect, the Nexus would display more tiles in the vertical direction than than the iPad.

Instead the Nexus displays less both directions. 2.5 x 2, versus 3x3 for the iPad.

Then blame the browser rendering in that case. If you look closely, the Google Logo and buttons on both devices are about the same size, but the Nexus is rendering individual images larger than the iPad.

In any event, the point was that the Nexus has more screen real estate, and that's just a fact that can't be argued. The Nexus has 1280 x 800 (1,024,000) pixels to work with, while the iPad Mini has 1024 x 768 (786,432) pixels, about 25% less usable screen real estate. Add to that my previous comments about Android allowing more icons/widgets on screen than iOS and it's plain to see which device has more screen real estate. The video in question was just garbage reporting.

One could justify the $129 premium over the Nexus 7 if it improved the user experience.

So the App Store's awesomely huge selection of apps compared to the competition doesn't "improve the user experience"?

You raised the question about the display, and I gave you a reason why it stinks. The App store is a completely different topic. I don't think there's any debate that Apple has more apps.

Quantity versus Quality. They "might" have more apps. Do they actually have more of the apps you want? Do you find the selection lacking in the other stores? Or do you find your particular needs are actually met better by the apps available for the other platform.

The case for the Mini didn't really make sense when it was rumored last year, and I think it makes less sense now. It's not that it is a bad 7" tablet; on specs and app selection, it's arguably the best around. The problem is that it is still poised as an iPad. It seems too similar to the 3rd gen iPod Touch where they updated the internals except for the lowly 8GB version. Instead of a level upgrade, a demonstrably inferior product was put on display. Especially with the push for "Retina" displays across the product line, from iPods to Macbooks, and two iPad generations to push app resolutions up, the Mini's display seems like a step backwards. The processor, like resolution, hot off the heels of the A6 and A6X, is also a generation old.

Forget that it's still quite capable. Forget that Apple typically uses high quality displays regardless of resolution. Forget that a Retina Mini is inevitable, likely less than a year after debut of the 1st gen. The iPad Mini is a compromise. While other Apple products reach for the top, the Mini falls short; you don't buy an iPad to settle for less. The Mini might just be the weakest entry in their current line up.

It's both. If it was just Aspect, the Nexus would display more tiles in the vertical direction than than the iPad.

Instead the Nexus displays less both directions. 2.5 x 2, versus 3x3 for the iPad.

Then blame the browser rendering in that case. If you look closely, the Google Logo and buttons on both devices are about the same size, but the Nexus is rendering individual images larger than the iPad.

In any event, the point was that the Nexus has more screen real estate, and that's just a fact that can't be argued. The Nexus has 1280 x 800 (1,024,000) pixels to work with, while the iPad Mini has 1024 x 768 (786,432) pixels, about 25% less usable screen real estate. Add to that my previous comments about Android allowing more icons/widgets on screen than iOS and it's plain to see which device has more screen real estate. The video in question was just garbage reporting.

I don't think you're grasping how it works, think of it more as density rather then size.

It's both. If it was just Aspect, the Nexus would display more tiles in the vertical direction than than the iPad.

Instead the Nexus displays less both directions. 2.5 x 2, versus 3x3 for the iPad.

Then blame the browser rendering in that case. If you look closely, the Google Logo and buttons on both devices are about the same size, but the Nexus is rendering individual images larger than the iPad.

In any event, the point was that the Nexus has more screen real estate, and that's just a fact that can't be argued. The Nexus has 1280 x 800 (1,024,000) pixels to work with, while the iPad Mini has 1024 x 768 (786,432) pixels, about 25% less usable screen real estate. Add to that my previous comments about Android allowing more icons/widgets on screen than iOS and it's plain to see which device has more screen real estate. The video in question was just garbage reporting.

I don't think you're grasping how it works, think of it more as density rather then size.

The Nexus has higher pixel density as well, 216ppi vs. 162 for the mini. What are you trying to say?

Why get a Vita or Wii U when you can have a killer gaming device plus a fuckton functionality more for just a little bit more? [...] It blows my mind why anyone would want a Sony or Nintendo device.

Because the "killer app" for a gaming device is not its tech specs or the availability of iPhoto.

All the successful dedicated platforms launched with exclusive and famous software brands. The first Playstation had Namco, Capcom, Square and Psygnosis. The Xbox had Halo. The Wii had its in-house franchises.

Also, the Wii's numerous controllers most certainly played a big part in purchase decisions. Try bowling or doing a fitness session with an iPad. It's not the same experience.

Gamers want a particular device because it can run their favorite games. To play the New Super Mario Bros all day long, there is only one option.

(Apple plays the same exclusivity card for non-games apps: to work with Final Cut Pro, you'll want to buy a Mac, even though a Wintel PC may have a "fuckton functionality more" for a little bit less.)

Can someone explain to me why the iPad mini's display is judged not up to snuff by so-called "experts" who had no problem with the display of the iPad 2, which has exactly the same number of pixels? A 7.9" display with the same resolution as a 9.7" display will look sharper to the naked eye. Period. So what's the problem? It seems to me that there is no problem at all except the idiocy of people who imagine that the iPad mini's display is sub-par because it isn't a "retina" display. They are like people who gush effusively about cheap wine that has been poured into an expensive bottle, and vice versa. The people who listen to them are even bigger idiots than the "experts".

There are many people out there who were crushed when the iPad 2 did not have retina and were quite vocal about it. I waited until the iPad 3 (new..urgh) which did have retina as it was so critical to my intended use of text reading. I loath reading text on a computer screen it's just not a fun experience, but at least I typically sit further away from the screen. The iPad 3 is the only screen that I will read an ebook or pdf on nowadays.

Now the iPad is a heavy device and it's uncomfortable to hold for extended periods. It's better than lugging out my laptop, having to wait till it boots and does it's thing, having to ineviatably plug in a charger in and deal with the form factor, but it's not a true portable device IMHO (as in you can't hold it with you all day, it needs a table). The mini is set to fit that niche quite well, unfortunately it sucks for reading text and I like many, will wait for a retina iPad mini device. I will clarify that..I have better than 20/20 vision and many people do not, but the text on an iPad 2/mini looks incredibly artifacted to me. It's great for games, but useless for text and as that is my primary use for such a device I'm not interested. I don't think it has anything to do with wine snobbery..its more like the change when monitors went from scanlines at 30hz to progressive displays above 60hz. It is easier on the eyes for extended periods and gives less chance of inducing headaches. Some my not see the difference with retina displays, but to me it's like night and day.

One could justify the $129 premium over the Nexus 7 if it improved the user experience.

So the App Store's awesomely huge selection of apps compared to the competition doesn't "improve the user experience"?

You raised the question about the display, and I gave you a reason why it stinks. The App store is a completely different topic. I don't think there's any debate that Apple has more apps.

Quantity versus Quality. They "might" have more apps. Do they actually have more of the apps you want? Do you find the selection lacking in the other stores? Or do you find your particular needs are actually met better by the apps available for the other platform.

Fanboy argumentation doesn't work for the app store either.

It's like the 2nd coming of MS-DOS.

You probably are going to yell fanboy at me but I am not really als that happy with a closed system like ios. But isn't app quality the most important strong point ios has. Even if you compare the same app like the facebook app on a ios vs android tablet the ios version clearly wins.

Even Apple appears to have stuck to the party line. They released a 7" tablet that's less powerful than the iPod Touch.

Less powerful? It has the same dual-core A5 CPU, the same amount of RAM, the display is display 4 times larger, and battery is 4.2 times larger (in watt-hours).

And yet, the iPad Mini is only $30 more expensive than the iPod Touch.

The only thing the iPod has over the iPad Mini is double the flash memory... which is fine, because the iPad isn't a very good music player and therefore doesn't need to hold your entire music library.

why do people keep comparing the Nexus 7 camera to the mini? Or even bring it up? The N7 has no camera built in. I own one. The ones saying the Nexus 7 lags after awhile it a lie! Ive had one since day one.. no lag. Keyboard lag was fixed by de-selecting next word prediction. btw I never had keyboard lag, I read about it.

The only thing the iPod has over the iPad Mini is double the flash memory... which is fine, because the iPad isn't a very good music player and therefore doesn't need to hold your entire music library.

And being a 1/4 of the size. My iTouch fits in any pants pocket while the mini would require cargo pants.

I just want to say that I LOVE these open forum posts.When I was younger and had more time, I would often post and read large forums, but I'm currently at a point in my life where I recognize I have a lot of learning to do and therefor I can't waste time opinionating my self on forums. These articles allow me to circumvent the forums and get a moderated view of whata more general public think of a device or an event.

Thanks ars!(As for the mini, I like that they came out with it, but I simply can't find much use for a tablet. I've owned an ipad for nearly a year and barely use it and plan to sell it to my mom who doesn't have a laptop or tablet. I probably won't buy one again, until I do ipad development again."

You just spread a troll-thread all over the front page and gave publicity to two of the Battlefront's most obnoxious trolls, SmoledMan and dwell. Congratulations, Ars, if your intention was to go to bat for Apple over the Mini, you couldn't have picked a better thread or a better pair of advocates.

You forgot OrangeCream.

Edit: Actually, having read the full article here I am amazed. Firstly at the level of apologism that exists in the Apple community, and secondly at Ars Technica for such a completely unbalanced "article" about the merits (I would say or otherwise, but that's my point) of the iPad mini.

It's better than the Nexus 7? Well, subjectively perhaps - but look at the price difference. It's ruined the 7 inch tablet market? I have no idea where this comes from - the 7 inch market isn't focussed on overpriced and underspecced, it's very much focussed on value. It's got better cameras? I've taken about three photos with my tablets - my phone has a much better and infinitely more useable camera. It's amazing for enterprise? How about some sort of evidence to support random claims.

This is just troll-baiting, Ars. You are once again trying on the "Apple vs. Android" fight - is it really so hard to get eyeballs on pages with proper news?

You just spread a troll-thread all over the front page and gave publicity to two of the Battlefront's most obnoxious trolls, SmoledMan and dwell. Congratulations, Ars, if your intention was to go to bat for Apple over the Mini, you couldn't have picked a better thread or a better pair of advocates.

You forgot OrangeCream.

Edit: Actually, having read the full article here I am amazed. Firstly at the level of apologism that exists in the Apple community, and secondly at Ars Technica for such a completely unbalanced "article" about the merits (I would say or otherwise, but that's my point) of the iPad mini.

It's better than the Nexus 7? Well, subjectively perhaps - but look at the price difference. It's ruined the 7 inch tablet market? I have no idea where this comes from - the 7 inch market isn't focussed on overpriced and underspecced, it's very much focussed on value. It's got better cameras? I've taken about three photos with my tablets - my phone has a much better and infinitely more useable camera. It's amazing for enterprise? How about some sort of evidence to support random claims.

This is just troll-baiting, Ars. You are once again trying on the "Apple vs. Android" fight - is it really so hard to get eyeballs on pages with proper news?

What do you think the penetration of Android is in the enterprise? Low.

Why you ask. They obviously have better ecosystem and the most fastest bestest everything. Because you don't know what kind of support you will get from the maker and what kind of updates and will the apps you just bought will they run on the future versions or will the SDK change too much. What else you ask? The various hardware with SD cards interfaces for fabulous rock solid way for them to be cracked. Hence why they Nexus 4 is without.

You just spread a troll-thread all over the front page and gave publicity to two of the Battlefront's most obnoxious trolls, SmoledMan and dwell. Congratulations, Ars, if your intention was to go to bat for Apple over the Mini, you couldn't have picked a better thread or a better pair of advocates.

You forgot OrangeCream.

OrangeCream deserves a lot better than to be mentioned in the same context as the other two. At least he makes halfway decent arguments and doesn't stoop to deliberate and transparent baiting.

The Nexus 7 will technically display more content (at the pixel level) since it's 1280x800 screen has more pixels in both directions than the iPad Mini's 1024x768 screen. An alternate way of looking at it would be to say that the iPad Mini is cutting of the bottom of the page by 32 pixels in landscape orientation at equal zoom levels. Or in portrait orientation it is cutting off 256 pixels from the bottom of a page.

My guess is that's purely based on the mobile detection of the web site, so it would be interesting to know why and how many screen sizes they actually detect. The Nexus 7 browser actually has more pixels making up those two-across thumbnails than the iPad Mini has making up the three-across. It would be interesting to know why the Nexus 7 defaults to two rows instead of three. Perhaps someone at Google has looked at each one and created a profile based on the physical dimension of the screens for dozens of devices out there.

Also interesting an Asus TF700 will show three thumbnails across but uses 1200 pixels for that, while my Windows desktop browser will show 6 thumbnails across at 1200 pixels wide.

EDIT:Another example, the Samsung Galaxy Nexus phone which is the same resolution as the Nexus 7, displays 4 thumbnails across, beating both the iPad Mini and the Nexus 7. However it does seem to be a different kind of page without the continuous scrolling option.

You're talking speeds and feeds, and ignoring the overall package. Who cares what the N7 sells for? It simply isn't a very good tablet overall. The N7 has a dearth of tablet-specific apps; a plastic shell (the one I've played with felt cheap and flexy to me, not "sturdy" as parroted by the Google faithful); mediocre (if hi-res) screen--remember that it came in 3rd in the recent shootout behind the low-res iPad mini and Amazon Kindle Fire HD; laughable customer support; OS updates for an unknown length of time (but likely under 2 years based on support history for the Nexus line); and very weak options for mobile broadband.

Are we talking about the same tablet? My mom owns one, and I was surprised by its sturdiness, actually. The screen is also totally serviceable (even good) for its size -- I can see a 10" tablet being used for Photoshop Touch or something, and insane color accuracy important, but (a) you're not actually doing image comparisons or looking at super-intense colors with high required fidelity on something that size and (b) even full monitors need color fidelity tweaking, and we see how much complaint that gets.

Quote:

One of the best things about the iPad is the $20 contract-free 1 GB/month real 4G from the major carriers like Verizon and AT&T. That's a pretty good deal for a service that you can activate when you need it, and not pay a dime when you don't.

Or tether it to the phone in your pocket ... with more data ... for less money ...

Quote:

And most importantly, the iPad mini comes with a ton of tablet-customized apps, including a lot of ones developed for niche markets, plus a lot of developers already making profits from the iPad ecosystem and willing to continue making apps. Between the relatively tiny customer base for Android tablets in general, the fact that they come in a wide variety of screen resolutions and hardware configurations, a continuing unwillingness by Android users to spend actual money on apps, and the serious problem of Android app piracy, the jury is still very much out on whether it is worth the opportunity cost for a typical developer to tailor apps for Android tablets.

While Android does need more tablet form factors embedded into apps, it's not a problem with mixed resolutions or anything -- Android development allows for smart scaling based on screen size, just most devs don't use it. Sigh.

But besides all that ... on a mini-tablet, why in the world wouldn't you want a 16:9 device? Video has got to be one of the main uses of it, and web pages/e-books are basically the same. (Though, really, e-books are all about the e-ink)

I can see where they might make inroads with regard to inventory management, but not until they make a really functional "ruggedized" tablet for the simple matter that sliding off of a forklift onto concrete, asphalt, whatever would be somewhat detrimental to the hardware. If that prospect is mitigated, then it is intriguing to think what might could happen with a company with a fully fleshed out ERP system that ties everything together in the office and in the field with an application that can span desktop, tablet and mobile operating systems.

The Nexus fails at srgb. Why are we bothering to even compare brightness?

Also.. 16:9 is great for movies on a tablet but fails at everything else. (On a tablet) Keep in mind that screen height is already limited by being "tablet size." Now imagine down the road when tablets are much more powerful... More similar to laptops. Do you want to be using a tool palette in a photo editing app with only 3-4 inches of vertical space for clicking on? Or are we going to only use our tool palettes while in portrait mode? Keep in mind no matter what the resolution is your fingers still need to fit between all those pixels for accurate click/tapping.

But.. But... But... You say... "We can just put the tool palette on top when we're in landscape and it will fit everything."

It's both. If it was just Aspect, the Nexus would display more tiles in the vertical direction than than the iPad.

Instead the Nexus displays less both directions. 2.5 x 2, versus 3x3 for the iPad.

Then blame the browser rendering in that case. If you look closely, the Google Logo and buttons on both devices are about the same size, but the Nexus is rendering individual images larger than the iPad.

In any event, the point was that the Nexus has more screen real estate, and that's just a fact that can't be argued. The Nexus has 1280 x 800 (1,024,000) pixels to work with, while the iPad Mini has 1024 x 768 (786,432) pixels, about 25% less usable screen real estate. Add to that my previous comments about Android allowing more icons/widgets on screen than iOS and it's plain to see which device has more screen real estate. The video in question was just garbage reporting.

I don't think you're grasping how it works, think of it more as density rather then size.

The Nexus has higher pixel density as well, 216ppi vs. 162 for the mini. What are you trying to say?

That's the problem, actually. The screen is both denser and smaller. And the wrong aspect ratio.

There's a minimum size of control a user can comfortably tap with their finger, about a quarter of an inch. That means that on the iPad mini, controls need to be about 44 pixels across for acceptable tapability, while on the Nexus 7, they need to be more like 58 pixels across. So if you divide the two screens in to hit targets, the N7 is 22.1ht by 13.8ht (304 total targets), while the iPm is 23.3ht by 17.5ht (406 total). So in terms of useable controls, you can fit 33.4% more on to the mini's 7.9" 163ppi screen, when compared to the N7's 7", 216ppi screen.

Can someone explain to me why the iPad mini's display is judged not up to snuff by so-called "experts" who had no problem with the display of the iPad 2, which has exactly the same number of pixels? A 7.9" display with the same resolution as a 9.7" display will look sharper to the naked eye. Period. So what's the problem? It seems to me that there is no problem at all except the idiocy of people who imagine that the iPad mini's display is sub-par because it isn't a "retina" display. They are like people who gush effusively about cheap wine that has been poured into an expensive bottle, and vice versa. The people who listen to them are even bigger idiots than the "experts".

The problem is the ipad mini display is, it is "4 steps forward and 3 steps back". Meaning it is better than the ipad 1 and ipad 2, but not better than nexus 7 and certainly not better than ipad 3 or ipad 4

How exactly could a different size tablet be regarded as brilliant. It's like those automakers that call every feature 'revolutionary.' Absolute nonsensical hyperbole..

The Mini is a perfectly good product - and a perfectly good idea. But its not even in the conversation that comes when you discuss brilliant. Discovering radiation or inventing penicilin.. Not a new ipad..come on now.. No one will even remember it 10 years from now..

The seven inch tablets are perfectly sized for travel. They not only travel well, but that size is also great for in-car use (or Jeep, in my case). When I'm traveling, it's nice to know where I am. It's nice for the tablet to know where I am--for maps and restaurant recommendations and such. And, because of the places I travel often (wilderness areas without any people, much less cell phone or Wi-Fi service), it's vital that my tablet feed me the information I need without cloud dependency. The iPad Mini does not include GPS except for the much more expensive cell-phone models. The cheapest Nexus 7 has GPS. With Backcountry Navigator and CoPilot GPS apps, I have great mapping software on my Android device, that works without the cell connection. On top of that, the Torque app lets me monitor my Jeep's CAN bus for vehicle performance. It's a perfect solution for me. And, I am finding the tablet has a great many other uses, but these are the uses that made me decide to put one in my Jeep. It works, and it's a lot cheaper than the Apple solution (no surprise there).

It's a perfect solution for me. And, I am finding the tablet has a great many other uses, but these are the uses that made me decide to put one in my Jeep. It works, and it's a lot cheaper than the Apple solution (no surprise there).

--mark d.

There's no doubt that a Nexus is the better universal touchscreen computer for less money. Doesn't mean though that all people want that when they're looking for a tablet.

All these comparisons, whether correct or not, are simply subjective. I am a long time Mac user and recently bought both the new iPad 4 and mini so I could compare for my uses (not someone else's) and then plan to take the loser back to the Apple store. For me, even though the Retina display is a little nice (very little), the mini is a clear winner. There is absolutely no visible difference in visible speed between the A6 and A5 processor, the new mini has the same new WiFi radio, it's lighter, easier to hold and use for book reading and casual use, has a MUCH "whiter" white background for reading books (or anything else with a solid white background)...this is due to it not having a Retina display, and I could go on. Pictures even look stunning on it, but in the end...it's YOUR choice.

I am a long time Mac user and recently bought both the new iPad 4 and mini so I could compare for my uses (not someone else's) and then plan to take the loser back to the Apple store.

Going off topic, but I am shocked how many times I am reading this lately. People buying two devices with zero intention of keeping both, just so they can play with them and decide which they like better. Then returning one of them.

That isn't the intention of return policies. You just removed the profit from that item for the store, possibly even created a loss, because the item can no longer be sold as new.

I am a long time Mac user and recently bought both the new iPad 4 and mini so I could compare for my uses (not someone else's) and then plan to take the loser back to the Apple store.

Going off topic, but I am shocked how many times I am reading this lately. People buying two devices with zero intention of keeping both, just so they can play with them and decide which they like better. Then returning one of them.

That isn't the intention of return policies. You just removed the profit from that item for the store, possibly even created a loss, because the item can no longer be sold as new.

Don't worry, Apple's margins are so grotesquely bloated that they'd never even begin to notice a few people doing this.

Not to even mention Apple sells "refurbished" equipment at almost the same premium price as "new", and they have a massive herd bleating at the doorstep to buy it at those prices, too.

I am a long time Mac user and recently bought both the new iPad 4 and mini so I could compare for my uses (not someone else's) and then plan to take the loser back to the Apple store.

Going off topic, but I am shocked how many times I am reading this lately. People buying two devices with zero intention of keeping both, just so they can play with them and decide which they like better. Then returning one of them.

That isn't the intention of return policies. You just removed the profit from that item for the store, possibly even created a loss, because the item can no longer be sold as new.

Hmm, especially if you buy a product over the Internet this is the only way to make sure you can actually touch and see something with your own eyes before committing to buy. In Europe 14 days of "if you don't like it send it back at no cost, no questions asked" is even mandated by law if you buy something online. Even the companies like it this way. Makes buying things much easier.